General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 841 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 841
states further that the Employer informed it that it sent a letter to the
Board stating that it had no objection to the change in certification.
The Petitioner and certified bargaining representative (Interna-
tional Chemical Workers Union, AFL) "on behalf of itself and its
constituent Local Union #579" filed a response to the notice to show
cause in which it stated that (1) "Local 579, International Chemical
Workers Union, AFL,1 was duly and properly certified as the collec-
tive-bargaining agent of the employees" of the Employer on July 2,
1954, and its certification is less than 6 months old; (2) the local has
not been dissolved by the parent International Union and maintains
its charter, its constitution and bylaws, and administers its collective-
bargaining relationship with the Employer and no valid disaffiliation
from the parent International Union exists; (3) a splinter group com-
posed of discharged organizers of the International is engaged in an
effort to disrupt collective-bargaining relationships and to organize
a rival union, and "trades upon the name of said International Union
and therefore misrepresents itself to the employees herein as well as
to the Board and the employer"; and (4) in another Board proceeding
(Liquid Carbonic Corporation, 6-RM-107, not reported in printed
volume of Board Decisions and Orders) evidence was admitted of an
injunctive order against the moving party prohibiting the unauthor-
ized use of its name, title, and designation.
It is clear from the foregoing that the allegations contained in the
moving party's motion constitute an attempt to raise a question con-
cerning representation. The moving party requests that we resolve
this alleged question concerning representation by amending the
certification. However, as the Board stated explicitly in Weather-
head Company of Ant-iverp, 106 NLRB 1266, "both the Act and the
Board's policy require that such matters be determined through a
petition and secret ballot of the employees concerned." In accordance
with established Board policy, we shall therefore deny this motion.'
[The Board denied the motion to amend the certification.]
1 The Board' s records show that the certification was issued to "International Chemical
Workers Union, AFL."
3 Gulf Ott Corporation , 109 NLRB 861 ; Wagner Electric Corporation, 91 NLRB 220.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION, TONA-
WANDA FOUNDRY PLANT, TONAWANDA, NEW YORK and PATTERN
MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, BUFFALO, NEW YORK ASSOCIA-
TION , PETITIONER . Case No. 3-RC-1443. March 0, 1955
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Murray S. Freeman, hearing
111 NLRB No. 138.
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The hearing officer referred
to the Board the motions of the Employer and the International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, CIO, and its Local 1173, herein called the Inter-
venor, to dismiss the petition on the ground that a current contract
between them constitutes a bar to this proceeding, and as an alternate
position, that an expanding unit is involved herein. For reasons stated
hereafter, the motions are denied.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer. We find on the basis of evidence taken at
the hearing that the Petitioner is a labor organization.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit composed of all wood and
metal patternmakers at the Tonawanda Foundry Plant at Tonawanda,
New York. Both the Employer and the Intervenor urge a national
contract of 1950 and a memorandum of agreement of 1954, as a bar
to a determination of representatives at this time. The Employer
stated at the hearing that it considers the Intervenor as the certified
representative of the employees at the foundry as all employees are
being transferred to the foundry from the aviation plant where the
Intervenor was formerly certified. Both the Employer and Inter-
venor further urge, that if the Board finds the contract not to consti-
tute a bar, an election should not be directed at this time as less than
15 percent of the anticipated total production and maintenance em-
ployees have been hired. The Petitioner asserts that the contract can-
not serve as a bar because of the expansion of the plant unit as well as
the pattern shop unit.
The Intervenor was certified in 1941 as the bargaining representative
of the production and maintenance employees in the aviation engine
plant of General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division.
Since 1941, the employees have been represented by the Intervenor
and covered by national contracts. The most recent of these agree-
ments was executed on May 29, 1950, and by its terms remains in effect
until May 29,1955.
The Employer plans to close the aviation engine plant in the near
future and to transfer its employees to two new operations, a forge
and a foundry operation which it is building adjacent to the engine
plant.
GENERAL -MOTORS CORPORATION 843
On April 15, 1954, the Employer and the Intervenor executed, pur-
suant to a provision in the national agreement relating to the estab-
lishment of new plants (paragraphs Nos. 95 and 96), a memorandum
of understanding relating to the transfer of the aviation engine plant
employees to the new plants of the Employer, securing for the em-
ployees the continuation of wage rates, uninterrupted seniority, and
other benefits as provided in the national agreement. Pursuant to
paragraphs Nos. 97 and 102 of the national agreement, wage rates were
negotiated for classifications that had not existed at the aviation plant.
These classifications included patternmakers involved in this case.
Although patternmakers were not hired until sometime after the exe-
cution of the memorandum, there is no doubt that the parties to the
contract intended to cover the patternmaker classification by the
contract.
The petition herein was filed on August 4, 1954. As we have found
that the memorandum of April 1954 includes the patternmakers, we
must now determine whether the agreement constitutes a bar to deter-
mination of representatives at this time.
The terms of the memorandum of understanding indicate that the
parties contemplated the establishment of a new unit at the Tona-
wanda Foundry Plant. Although the memorandum arranges for
transfer of aviation employees to the foundry plant, it recognizes
that there exists a basic difference in the type of work to be done at
the foundry, and the work previously done at the aviation plant;
that some of the aviation employees will need training, that there will
be additional classifications and some new employees employed at the
foundry, and that the foundry product will be different from the
product of the aviation plant. Employees of the aviation engine
plant have been required to file application for employment at the
foundry, and have been selected according to seniority at the aviation
plant, as jobs for which they were qualified became available at the
foundry. We conclude from the foregoing that the foundry plant is
a new operation of the Employer.'
At the hearing, the personnel director testified that he was pres-
ently acting as personnel director of both the aviation engine plant
and the foundry, and that as of the date of the hearing, October 21,
1954, no production had been begun at the foundry. Hiring of em-
ployees for the foundry began on March 5, 1954, and during that
month four employees were hired. As of October 15, 1954, 276 em-
ployees had been employed at the foundry, and by June 1955, the Em-
ployer expects to have approximately 1,817 foundry employees. The
schedule of employment is as follows : In November, the Employer
I See Gene? at Electric Company, 85 NLRB 150, New Jersey Natural Gas Company, 101
NLRB 251 Cf Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 131; Corning Glass
Works, 93 NLRB 775, 777, Pluss Poultry, Inc, 100 NLRB 64; The Mennen Company,
105 NLRB 677.
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expects to have 579 employees; in December, 627; in January, 1,175;
in February, 1,501; in March, 1,524; in April, 1,696; in May, 1,784;
in June, 1,817.
It has been a long-established policy of the Board that a contract
cannot serve as a bar to a representative election if it was entered into
before a representative group had been employed in the unit it cov-
ers.' As indicated above the memorandum of understanding between
the Employer and the Intervenor, urged in bar, was executed on April
15, 1954, at a time when the Employer had not recruited a comple-
ment of employees with job functions representative of the anticipated
work force. For this reason, we find the contract of April 15, 1954, is
no bar to a determination of representatives at this time.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all patternmakers, wood and metal,
and their apprentices, employed by the General Motors Corporation,
Chevrolet Motor Division, at its Tonawanda Foundry Plant at Tona-
wanda, New York, excluding all production and maintenance employ-
ees, office and plant clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer agrees as to the
appropriateness of the unit; the Intervenor asserts that the unit is in-
appropriate and contends that the history of bargaining on a larger
scale should prevent a determination on this petition. Apparently,
the Intervenor refers to bargaining at the aviation plant.
The foundry pattern shop is located on the second floor directly
above the cafeteria in the main building, and is known as the pattern
shop department. Located therein are wood and metal working ma-
chinery. Other employees in the pattern shop at the current time are
janitors and machinery repairmen machinists. Although no evidence
was presented at the hearing as to the training or experience of the
patternmakers, all apparently are engaged in patternmaking work and
are craftsmen. We, therefore, find that the following employees con-
stitute a craft unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All patternmak-
ers, wood and metal, and their apprentices, employed by the Employer
at its foundry plant at Tonawanda, New York, excluding all produc-
tion and maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. We find no merit in the contention made by the Employer and
the Intervenor that the election is premature, if held at this time, and
should be postponed until such time as a full working force has been
employed. The Petitioner requests an immediate election.
At the time of the hearing, the production employees had not been
hired, or transferred from the aviation plant, and production had not
2 See Cleveland Graphite Bronze Company , 100 NLRB 765; Carbide c6 Carbon Chemical
Division, 98 NLRB 270; Price National Corporation, 102 NLRB 1393; Armstrong Cork
Company (Lancaster Floor Plant ), 106 NLRB 1147.
TECHNICAL TAPE CORPORATION 845
been begun. At that time the foundry employees consisted primarily
of maintenance employees. The personnel director testified that many
occupational classifications would be added to the foundry classifica-
tions then employed, and that all employees at the aviation plant would
be offered employment at the foundry and would carry their seniority
with them.
On October 15, 1954, the date of the hearing, 13 patternmakers had
been employed at the foundry, 7 metal and 6 wood. The schedule for
hiring additional patternmakers is approximately 8 each month until
June 1955, when a total of 80 patternmakers, 10 wood and 70 metal,
will be attained. On this basis we believe that the working force of
patternmakers which will be employed when the election directed
herein is held, will be a substantial and representative segment of the
employees to be employed in the unit. We, therefore, see no reason
for departing from the Board's usual policy of directing an immediate
election.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 See Hollywood Maxwell Co ., 97 NLRB 70.
TECHNICAL TAPE CORPORATION and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-2516.
March 3, 1955
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Samoff, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent in a separate unit the produc-
tion and maintenance employees of the Employer's Old Bridge, New
Jersey, plant. The Employer, Technical Tape Corporation, agrees
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the motion of Local 552 , International
Brotherhood of Papermakers, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the unit requested therein is inappropriate. For the reasons stated in
paragraph numbered 4, above, the motion is hereby denied.
111 NLRB No. 139.